Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.92 seconds)The Designs Act, 2000
Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd vs Wyeth Ltd. on 15 March, 2013
The aforesaid judgment was considered by a Full Bench of the Delhi
High Court in Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd. reported at AIR
2013 Delhi 101 (FB) in Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the report which read:-
Section 2 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Gammeter vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs ... on 22 May, 1917
Their Lordships discussed the concept of new and original in
Gammeter v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, AIR 1919 Cal. 887.
In this context, it was observed:
The Wimco Limited vs Meena Match Industroies on 26 May, 1983
This magazine under evidence is stated to be a monthly journal
printed and published in Mumbai. It is stated to be of restricted
circulation with rate of subscription by air as Rs.1000.00 in India and
Euro 100/- a year worldwide. This shows that those issues of the
magazine 'Ambrosia' were available in India as well as some other
countries upon payment of subscription. No condition has been
mentioned in those issues of the magazine about non disclosure of
secrecy to be maintained by the subscriber readers about the contents
of the magazine. It was held by Hon'ble High Court in the matter of the
Wimco Limited Vs. Meena Match Industries [Manu/DE/0255/1983]
that:
Gopal Glass Works Ltd. vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And ... on 17 August, 2005
In Gopal Glass Works Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents
& Designs & Ors. reported at 2006 (3) CHN 188 originates from this court.
In Paragraph 30 of the said judgment, it was observed that under the law
presently in force in India, specifications, drawings and/ or demonstrations
in connection with registration of a design do not per se constitute
publications which prohibit future registration of that design. Had
publication of design specifications by a registering authority, particularly a
registering authority in a foreign country, in connection with registration of
a design, in itself, amounted to prior publication, that would hit all future
applications in India for registration of designs, prior registration in India
would not separately have been made a ground for cancellation of a
registered design. Moreover, it is significant that Parliament consciously,
made publication in a country other than India a ground of cancellation, in
addition to publication in India, but expressly restricted the embargo of
prior registration to registration in India. Registration in a country other
than India has not been made a ground for the cancellation of a registered
design.
Dart Industries Inc & Anr. vs Techno Plast & Ors. on 21 July, 2016
It is not permissible to make a mosaic of a number of prior
documents for the purpose of attacking novelty. If the attack on novelty
is to succeed, the design must be disclosed in the single prior document.
If, however, one document contains a reference to another document,
the two may be read together." (emphasis supplied)
Referring to the Rosedale judgment, the court in Dart Industries Inc.
And Another v. Techno Plast and others, 2007 (35) PTC 129 (Del) at
p.140 observed that "a person with ordinary prudence while seeing the
designs/documents in question is able to relate, in his mind's eye, the same
antecedents designs/statements without the necessity of making further
experiments i.e., the moment he sees the designs, he is able to at once say
'Oh! I have seen before'."